Clearly you are correct – the audience does want to hear you speak. There are times when just letting the heckler heckle is all they need and then you can move on. Other times they will be persistent as their goal may be to damage your credibility. Remember, the speaker has to play by different rules than the heckler.

Hecklers give the speaker the opportunity to improve credibility by demonstrating professionalism. Leaving questions unanswered or issues unaddressed (regardless of the intent of the questioner) may injure your credibility.

I think it is important to recognize there are different types of hecklers with different goals in mind. Hooper’s approach helps the speaker find the intent of the question or heckle, address it and move on.

Personally, I prefer when the audience all stands and showers me with money and applause – but I prepare for whatever they may throw at me.

I appreciate your comments.

I respectfully disagree with your three methods though, as in my expereince, they generally will not work. Ignoring, responding in kind (the Kramer example you gave is excellent) or humor, does not address the issue. Rather, you are giving fuel to the heckler (“Why won’t you address my question?”)

Rather, having a system in place to deal with difficult questions or hecklers is essential. Dr Jon Hooper (jhooper@csuchico.edu) has developed a three part system for this situation.

It is an approach that will work to diffuse the hecklers energy while acknowledging and addressing their concerns.

It involves collecting more information from your heckler, agreeing with some part of what they are saying (not entirely) and then disagreeing negotiability. I encourage you to contact Dr. Hooper as he is a great guy and offers workshops.

I use his system all the time and watch it work wonders. I am happy to talk with you more about this as well.

I appreciate your article and thank you.